Event 3 - Match 2 - Board 7

Board 7
Both sides vulnerable

♠ 10 7 ♥ J 6 5 4 ♦ 10 4 2 ♣ K Q 9 5

The opponents have the auction to themselves. LHO opens one diamond; RHO bids one spade. LHO raises to two spades; RHO bids two notrump, a relay. LHO bids three spades, showing four trumps and more than a minimum, and RHO bids four spades. I lead the club king.

	NORTH Kate ♠ K J 5 3 ♥ K 9 8 7 ♦ A Q 8 ♣ J 6
WEST Phillip ♠ 10 7 ♥ J 6 5 4 ♦ 10 4 2 ♣ K Q 9 5

West	North	East	South
Phillip	Kate	Jack	Stella
Pass	1 ♦	Pass	1 ♠
Pass	2 ♠	Pass	2 NT1
Pass	3 ♠2	Pass	4 ♠
(All pass)
1Relay
2Fourcard support and not a minimum

Since the two notrump relay can apparently be used to find out whether partner has three-card or four-card support, I suppose South might have a game force with four spades. If she has five spades, however, I assume she will have only an invitational hand, else she would have bid four spades directly over the raise.

Partner plays the club eight, and declarer follows with the deuce. Diamonds is the obvious shift, so partner's card (assuming it is high) should suggest that continuing clubs looks like a better idea to him than shifting to diamonds. There is no particular reason to believe partner has the club ace. He may encourage without the club ace if a diamond shift looks wrong.

What can I conclude about partner's diamonds? That's a difficult question. It depends on whether you think partner's signal is prescriptive ("Please shift to a diamond.") or descriptive ("I have something useful in diamonds, just so you know."). As a general rule, the less you know about the deal, the more descriptive your signals should be. So, at trick one, signals are usually descriptive. But not always. It all depends on context, and I think the context here calls for a more prescriptive approach.

Let's move over to the East seat for a moment. On this auction, looking at that dummy, my judgment would be that holding the diamond king alone (without the ten or jack) gives me good reason to steer partner away from a diamond shift. So I would tend to encourage clubs with that holding.

Take these two hands, for example:

(A) ♠ A 4 2 ♥ Q 3 2 ♦ K 9 6 ♣ 10 8 7 3

(B) ♠ A 4 2 ♥ 10 2 ♦ K 10 6 ♣ 10 8 7 4 3

With (A), I don't want a diamond shift unless partner has jack-ten of diamonds, in which case he might find the shift by himself. Simply change the diamond ten to the jack in the actual West hand, and a diamond shift would be fatal:

(A)

	NORTH Kate ♠ K J 5 3 ♥ K 9 8 7 ♦ A Q 8 ♣ J 6
WEST Phillip ♠ 10 7 ♥ J 6 5 4 ♦ J 4 2 ♣ K Q 9 5		EAST Jack ♠ A 4 2 ♥ Q 3 2 ♦ K 9 6 ♣ 10 8 7 3
	SOUTH Stella ♠ Q 9 8 6 ♥ A 10 ♦ 10 7 5 3 ♣ A 4 2

But if I hold (B), I do want a diamond shift. If I don't get it, I might be endplayed:

(B)

	NORTH Kate ♠ K J 5 3 ♥ K 9 8 7 ♦ A Q 8 ♣ J 6
WEST Phillip ♠ 10 7 ♥ J 6 5 4 ♦ J 4 2 ♣ K Q 9 5		EAST Jack ♠ A 4 2 ♥ 10 2 ♦ K 10 6 ♣ 10 8 7 4 3
	SOUTH Stella ♠ Q 9 8 6 ♥ A Q 3 ♦ 9 7 5 3 ♣ A 2

Accordingly, I would tend to encourage clubs at trick one with just the diamond king. If the heart suit were more threatening, I would feel different. For example, give dummy king-queen-jack fourth of hearts and take my spade ace away (so there is room for partner to hold the heart ace). Now the diamond king alone would be enough for me to discourage in clubs. Where is the dividing line? At what point are dummy's hearts sufficiently threatening that I would signal for diamonds without a supporting lower honor? I can't say exactly. It's a judgment call.

Elsewhere in this blog I have inveighed against fuzzy, context-based signals, and the discussion above may seem to belie that conviction. So let me clarify. I do think one should have clear rules about what message a signal conveys. You don't want to be in a situation where you know you want partner to play a spade but you aren't sure whether a low card or a high card is the way to ask for it. Judgment must come into play, however, in deciding whether to send that message. After all, we can agree that one spade--three spades is a limit raise yet still leave the dividing line between a limit raise and a forcing raise a matter of individual judgment.

In any event, these considerations are moot, since I'm playing with Jack. Jack isn't even looking at his diamonds, He's looking at his clubs and telling me he has the ace. Pure and simple.

Back over to the West seat. If partner has the club ace, I may need to cash our second club trick. It might go away if I don't. Should I cash the queen or lead a low one? It could be right to cash the queen so that I can stay on play to put a diamond through. Otherwise, partner may be endplayed:

(C)

	NORTH Kate ♠ K J 5 3 ♥ K 9 8 7 ♦ A Q 8 ♣ J 6
WEST Phillip ♠ 10 7 ♥ J 6 5 4 ♦ 10 4 2 ♣ K Q 9 5		EAST Jack ♠ 6 4 2 ♥ 10 2 ♦ K J 6 ♣ A 8 7 4 3
	SOUTH Stella ♠ A Q 9 8 ♥ A Q 3 ♦ 9 7 5 3 ♣ 10 2

Could cashing the queen could work out poorly if partner is short in clubs? Let's try another layout:

(D)

	NORTH Kate ♠ K J 5 3 ♥ K 9 8 7 ♦ A Q 8 ♣ J 6
WEST Phillip ♠ 10 7 ♥ J 6 5 4 ♦ 10 4 2 ♣ K Q 9 5		EAST Jack ♠ Q 9 2 ♥ Q 10 2 ♦ 7 6 5 3 ♣ A 8 3
	SOUTH Stella ♠ A 8 6 4 ♥ A 3 ♦ K J 9 ♣ 10 7 4 2

If I cash the queen, partner's ace will drop on the next round, establishing declarer's ten. But so what? We aren't beating the contract on this layout whatever I do. Four small clubs in declarer's hand is a very favorable assumption for declarer, so it is pointless to cater to it. I might as well cash the queen, so I can switch to diamonds at trick three.

Some might argue that a reliable partner can't have (C), that he would discourage at trick one with that hand. Indeed, in a poll I conducted on bridgewinners.com, roughly 80% of the respondents said they would discourage at trick one with (C). But I don't think you should.

Back to the East seat again. Yes, with (C) you want partner to play a diamond, but not just yet. You want him to cash the club queen first. If he doesn't, declarer can make the contract by pitching his club on dummy's fourth heart. If partner knew you had the club ace, you could discourage and trust him to work out on his own the need to cash before shifting. But partner doesn't know who has the ace. If you discourage, how will he know that he isn't supposed to shift immediately?

(E)

	NORTH Kate ♠ K J 5 3 ♥ K 9 8 7 ♦ A Q 8 ♣ J 6
WEST Phillip ♠ 10 7 ♥ J 6 5 4 ♦ 10 4 2 ♣ K Q 9 5		EAST Jack ♠ A 4 2 ♥ 10 2 ♦ K J 6 ♣ 10 8 7 4 3
	SOUTH Stella ♠ Q 9 8 6 ♥ A Q 3 ♦ 9 7 5 3 ♣ A 2

In this layout, if declarer wins the first trick, the defense is easy. But if she ducks, partner must find a diamond shift at trick two. It shouldn't be too hard for declarer to find this duck. You might as well give West his entry now while he is still somewhat in the dark.

Holding (C), then, you must encourage to get partner to cash the club queen. How do you get him to shift to diamonds at trick three? Actually, I doubt that's a problem. If partner held the diamond jack, a diamond shift would be dangerous. But he doesn't, so a diamond shift at trick three looks pretty routine. It's a perfectly safe exit, and it might be productive. Why would he ever not play a diamond at trick three? The idea that you somehow need to tell partner to lead diamonds comes from focusing on your own hand rather than looking at the deal from partner's perspective.

You have a difficult problem, however, if you switch the jack and ten of diamonds:

(F)

	NORTH Kate ♠ K J 5 3 ♥ K 9 8 7 ♦ A Q 8 ♣ J 6
WEST Phillip ♠ 10 7 ♥ J 6 5 4 ♦ J 4 2 ♣ K Q 9 5		EAST Jack ♠ 6 4 2 ♥ 10 2 ♦ K 10 6 ♣ A 8 7 4 3
	SOUTH Stella ♠ A Q 9 8 ♥ A Q 3 ♦ 9 7 5 3 ♣ 10 2

Again, you must encourage so partner will cash the club. But he will be hard pressed to find a diamond shift at trick three on his own. How can you get him to do the right thing? One possibility is to take charge. Overtake with the ace and return a suit-preference three of clubs. Obviously, this could work out badly. Even if you aren't playing with Lowenthal (who might have king empty fourth), this maneuver might still lose a trick by force. And, if it doesn't, partner must still work out why you did this. He might attribute it to something less obscure, like holding ace doubleton of clubs.

I think the best solution is to signal with the seven. The seven is high enough that partner will probably think it is encouraging and will cash the queen. Now you play the eight. By playing up the line, you negate your original message. The seven becomes discouraging in retrospect, and partner might work out that you want a diamond shift. He might get this right even if he doesn't suspect your equivocation. He might think you had ace-eight-seven third all along. The bridgewinners were about evenly split between encouraging and discouraging on this one, which I don't understand. If you think it's right to discourage clubs with (C), why would you change your mind with (F)? Two people did choose the seven, but no one said why. I don't know if they were intending to follow with the eight or not.

Back to the West seat on the actual deal. I cash the club queen. Partner plays the three; declarer, the ten. The three should be count, so partner should have ace third or fourth but not ace fifth. Comments in the aforementioned poll indicated that some would play this card as suit preference. All I have to say about that is, "Arggggghhhh!" (No offense intended.) I'd rather take suit preference off the card altogether than worry that partner would give me suit preference here. This should be count, because I might need to know if it's safe to continue a third round of clubs. Clarifying your holding in the suit led always takes precedence over suit preference unless your holding in the suit led is clearly immaterial. Playing a third club is a serious possibility, so your club length is hardly immaterial.

Fortunately, I don't need to worry whether Jack agrees with me or not. I see no reason not to switch to a diamond. I play the diamond deuce--eight--six--five. Declarer appears to have at least king-jack-nine-five. The missing diamonds are the seven, six, and three. I don't know if Jack would play high (count) or low (attitude) with two small. (He should give count, since his failure to win the trick is all the attitude I need. But that's a bit subtle for Jack.) In any event, I don't think Jack would play middle from three. So declarer has five diamonds. We need two major-suit tricks to beat this. Declarer has at most two hearts, so the two tricks will have to be either the ace-queen of a major or the heart ace and the spade queen.

Declarer plays the three of spades from dummy--four--ace--seven. Then deuce of spades--ten--jack--queen. This looks promising. If declarer could afford to lose a spade trick, she would have taken the safety play (cashing dummy's king, then leading low toward her hand). This line indicates she couldn't afford to lose a spade trick, so she must be going down.

No, wait. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions. If she has a doubleton club, she has a safety play. But not if she has three. If I have queen-ten fourth of spades and she plays king of spades, a spade to her ace, and another spade, I can hop and tap dummy to promote my spade ten. Furthermore, even if she has a doubleton club, the "safety" play isn't so safe. What if she loses to a doubleton queen of spades in my hand and I give partner a diamond ruff? I take it all back. This isn't as promising a development as I thought.

Partner returns the nine of spades to dummy's king. I pitch the four of diamonds. Declarer plays the seven of hearts--deuce--ace. I guess that's it. There is no prospect for a fourth trick.

	NORTH Kate ♠ K J 5 3 ♥ K 9 8 7 ♦ A Q 8 ♣ J 6
WEST Phillip ♠ 10 7 ♥ J 6 5 4 ♦ 10 4 2 ♣ K Q 9 5		EAST Jack ♠ Q 9 4 ♥ Q 3 2 ♦ 7 6 ♣ A 8 7 4 3
	SOUTH Stella ♠ A 8 6 2 ♥ A 10 ♦ K J 9 5 3 ♣ 10 2

So declarer did have a doubleton club and might have taken a safety play in spades. Whether she should or not is hard to say. A priori, it's more likely that the safety play is necessary than that she will run into a diamond ruff. But we didn't defend as if trumps were breaking badly. We might have tried the effect of three rounds of clubs if that were the case.

The contract and result were the same at the other table. But I'll bet they didn't spend nearly so much time as we did discussing the board. This is a pretty innocuous-looking deal, isn't it? If you were kibitzing when it was played, would you suspect this deal would spawn three poll questions and merit 2,000 words of commentary?


Table 1: -620
Table 2: +620

Result on Board 7: 0 imps
Total: +18 imps

Event 3 - Match 2 - Board 6

Board 6
Opponents vulnerable

♠ 8 2 ♥ A 7 5 ♦ A 3 2 ♣ A 10 8 7 4

RHO opens one spade, I double, and LHO bids four spades, which ends the auction.

If partner has a trump trick or a cashing king, it won't matter what I lead. But what if he doesn't? Do I need to develop a fourth trick before declarer can take discards, or should I defend passively (i.e., lead a trump) and force declarer to break the side suits herself? The more balanced dummy is, the more likely that it is right to defend passively. But dummy doesn't rate to be balanced. One of the problems of playing against Jack is you can't ask about alternative auctions. But surely LHO has some way to distinguish a raise to four spades on power from a raise on playing tricks. Dummy rates to have some pattern like 4-3-5-1 or 4-5-3-1, in which case I may need to attack dummy's three-card suit on opening lead. If I can find partner with the queen behind dummy's king or with queen-jack in front of declarer's king, I will have established the setting trick.

Whichever red suit I lead, it is probably better to lead low rather than the ace. Not for deceptive reasons but to retain a tenace in case declarer has king-queen small or king-jack small. The danger in leading low is that partner might have the king and decide not play it. But that's less of a concern at IMPs. If partner can't see a route to four tricks without assuming I have underled an ace, he will make that assumption.

Which red suit should I lead? Hearts is marginally safer, because I would be leading a five rather than a deuce. The higher the spot, the more likely it is partner will be able to tell I've underled the ace, since he knows I must have two cards higher than the one I led. While this is unlikely to matter, it's the only reason I think of to prefer one suit over the other, so I lead the five of hearts.

	NORTH Kate ♠ Q J 10 9 ♥ Q 10 9 4 ♦ 9 6 ♣ K J 2
WEST Phillip ♠ 8 2 ♥ A 7 5 ♦ A 3 2 ♣ A 10 8 7 4

West	North	East	South
Phillip	Kate	Jack	Stella
			1 ♠
Double	4 ♠	(All pass)

Okay. She got me. Why she didn't make a limit raise with this hand I can't imagine. If declarer has king third of hearts and partner's jack of hearts was going to be the setting trick, I may have blown it.

To my relief, declarer plays the queen from dummy. Partner plays the deuce; declarer, the jack. Partner's deuce should be attitude, suggesting that I make the "obvious shift" (to diamonds) when I get in. A high heart would be encouraging, not because partner has any particular reason to want me to continue hearts but because he has nothing in diamonds to make a shift by me worthwhile. Since we lack the tempi to develop tricks, partner has no reason to suggest a diamond shift except to cash out, so he should have the king.

That's what partner's deuce should mean. But Jack does not card this way. His deuce simply indicates he doesn't have a heart honor, as if I didn't already know that already.

What can I make of declarer's play of the heart queen? This would be a strange play holding king-jack third of hearts, since the ten is more flexible. The likeliest explanation is that she has king-jack doubleton and wants to win this trick in dummy, probably to take a spade finesee. Even so, the play is unusual. Declarer would normally expect the heart ace to be on her right, in which case the way to reach dummy in this suit is to play low. RHO will surely take the ace (since, for all he knows, his partner has the king), at which point she can drop the king. The fact that declarer chose to play the queen means she thinks the ace is more likely to be on her left than on her right. Since underleading an ace is rare, she must be fairly confident from the auction that partner can't have an ace (in addition to the spade king, which she must assume he has). That's too bad. It means if she is missing the club queen, there is no chance she will misguess that suit. (Although any chance of that happening probably vanished with my opening lead. I would not have led a heart from the ace holding a queen-high club suit.)

What are our prospects for beating this? Declarer has five spade tricks, three hearts tricks, and at least one club trick. Nine tricks in all. If she has the club queen, she has two club tricks, bringing her up to ten. In that case, I must hope partner has the diamond king, allowing us to cash four tricks first. If she does not have the club queen, however, she doesn't have ten tricks. So it would be a mistake to break diamonds. She must break the suit herself, and queen-jack of diamonds in partner's hand will be enough to beat the contract.

Declarer leads the nine of spades--seven--three--deuce, then the ten of spades--king--ace--eight. I expect to see the king of hearts, but declarer leads the three of clubs instead. One thing for sure. Declarer doesn't have three small clubs, or she wouldn't be playing clubs before hearts. Either she has a singleton or two small or she has the queen. Since I've already decided declarer is not going to misguess this suit, I can take my time deciding what to do.

Playing with a reliable partner, my correct play is to hop (in case she has a singleton) and cash the heart ace. It should be clear to partner that count is immaterial at this point. The only thing that matters is where his minor-suit honors are, so he should give a suit-preference signal: high with the diamond king, low with the club queen. (I'm not sure what he would play with neither of those cards, but it doesn't matter. If he has neither card, we aren't beating this contract anyway.) If he plays high, I play ace and a diamond. If he plays low, I defend passively. I can't count on Jack to signal that way however, so I must try something else.

I essentially have two choices (1) Hop and guess what to do next. (2) Duck to get more information.

If I choose (1), my percentage guess is to try to cash out. It's better to play partner for one card (the diamond king) than to play him for three (the club queen and the queen-jack of diamonds).

(2) loses immediately if declarer has a singleton club. But if she doesn't, I am guaranteed to get the hand right. When declarer knocks out my heart ace, I cash the club ace. If partner echos in clubs, I know declarer has queen third and I play ace and a diamond. If partner plays up the line, then I know declarer has a doubleton, and I get to see whether she has the queen or not. If so, I shift to ace and a diamond. If not, I know she has only nine tricks, and I defend passively.

(1) is superior if declarer has a singleton club and partner has the diamond king. (2) is superior if declarer has two small clubs and partner has queen-jack of diamonds. In all other cases, it doesn't matter which line I choose. Which scenario is more likely? Here is declarer's hand in each case:

(1) ♠ A x x x x ♥ K J ♦ Q J x x x ♣ x

(2) ♠ A x x x x ♥ K J ♦ K x x x ♣ x x

A four-two split is more likely than a five-one split, so (2) is more likely even before taking the high-card constraints into account. Accordingly, I duck. Declarer rises with the king, and partner follows with the five. That's a relief. Declarer didn't have a singleton. She continues with the deuce of clubs from dummy--nine--six. I play the seven. Partner shifts to the eight of diamonds, and declarer plays the queen. That doesn't look good. Partner wouldn't be leading the eight if he had the king. I take my red aces and play another diamond. Declarer claims. Making four for a push.

	NORTH Kate ♠ Q J 10 9 ♥ Q 10 9 4 ♦ 9 6 ♣ K J 2
WEST Phillip ♠ 8 2 ♥ A 7 5 ♦ A 3 2 ♣ A 10 8 7 4		EAST Jack ♠ K 7 ♥ 8 6 3 2 ♦ 10 8 7 4 ♣ Q 9 5
	SOUTH Stella ♠ A 6 5 4 3 ♥ K J ♦ K Q J 5 ♣ 6 3

As I said, I was supposed to underlead the ace of dummy's three-card suit. It just never occurred to me that suit was clubs. Do I get partial credit?

Table 1: -620
Table 2: +620

Result on Board 6: 0 imps
Total: +18 imps

Event 3 - Match 2 - Board 5

Board 5
Our side vulnerable

♠ J 8 ♥ J 7 3 ♦ Q J 6 5 2 ♣ A 6 5

Two passes to me. I pass, and LHO opens with one notrump (15-17). Partner bids two spades. Since we play Astro, this should be at least a six-card suit. And, since we do not play weak two-bids, this hand might well be opened with two spades at the other table.

RHO bids two notrump, natural and non-forcing. Wow! Some one who is even more old-fashioned that I am!

Back in pre-lebensohl days, responder's two notrump in competition was more competitive than invitational. You tended to stretch to game with most invitations. So two notrump was apt to be a hand on which you would have passed had RHO not acted. Accordingly, opener rarely pressed on to game. This approach has rightly fallen out of favor. From a total tricks perspective, it makes little sense to play this way. It's seldom right to bid two notrump as essentially a signoff in a competitive auction. If the opponents have an eight-card fit, you should probably compete in a suit rather than in notrump. If they don't, your surest plus is probably on defense.

I pass, as does LHO. Partner leads the six of spades (fourth best).

	NORTH Stella ♠ Q ♥ K 6 4 2 ♦ 10 9 7 4 ♣ Q J 8 4
		EAST Phillip ♠ J 8 ♥ J 7 3 ♦ Q J 6 5 2 ♣ A 6 5

West	North	East	South
Jack	Stella	Phillip	Kate
Pass	Pass	Pass	1 NT
2 ♠	2 NT	(All pass)

What is going on the spade suit? If partner has ace-ten seventh, the suit is running. How do we fare if partner has six spades? I will unblock the jack under dummy's queen. Hopefully, I will gain the lead before partner does and lead a spade through declarer. By the rule of eleven, declarer has two cards higher than the six. If declarer covers my eight, partner can win and drive declarer's last high card. If declarer ducks my eight, partner must overtake. Hopefully declarer will not have a major tenace left, so partner can set up his suit with one more lead. The only holding declarer can have where ducking my eight prevents us from establishing the suit is ace-ten fourth. In all other cases, partner can afford to overtake my eight and continue the suit.

Partner has at most eight high-card points (unless South opened light), so he has only one prime card outside spades: either a minor-suit king or a red ace. A diamond card will be of little use on defense. To have a realistic chance of beating this, I must hope his side card is an entry, either the club king or the heart ace. Let's examine each case in turn.

(1) The club king. Declarer might have eight tricks outside the club suit: two spades, four hearts, and two diamonds. But there is room in partner's hand for the heart queen. And declarer might have ace-queen doubleton of hearts. So it's possible declarer doesn't have four heart tricks and must play on clubs. If so, I must make sure to win the ace on the first club trick, preserving partner's entry.

(2) The heart ace. Declarer has two spades tricks and two diamond tricks. Three club tricks bring her up to seven, so she must go after a heart trick or a third diamond trick to make this. On the auction, the aces are probably split, so declarer must hope to drive partner's ace first. Since she is missing the heart jack, the natural play is to work on clubs first, hoping partner has the club ace. If I hop with the club ace and continue spades, however, as I must do in case (1), she might decide it is hopeless to play me for the heart ace as well. She may go after an extra diamond trick instead. If she has ace-king-eight of diamonds, she can take a double finesse against my queen-jack. If she has ace-king-five, she can lead the ten from dummy, hoping to pin a singleton or doubleton eight in partner's hand (a better play than hoping partner has a singleton jack or queen). To do that, however, she needs two dummy entries. I can prevent this diamond play by ducking the club. If she plays a second club, I must win it if she began with king third (else she will perforce abandon clubs, possibly playing a heart to her ten to develop two heart tricks). If she began with king fourth, however, I must duck again. When the second club holds, declarer must guess who has the club ace. If partner has it, she must play a third club. If I have it, she must switch to hearts. She will almost surely guess wrong. Normal defensive strategy in this situation is for third hand to grab his tricks early to preserve his partner's entries. It is unlikely East would duck the club ace even once, much less twice. It is surely more likely that West has ducked the ace, clinging to his only entry in quiet desperation.

So what should I do when declarer leads a club from dummy at trick two? Hop, playing for (1) or duck, playing for (2)? Partner rates to have more hearts than clubs, so he is more likely to hold the heart ace. Also, if he does hold the club king, there is a pretty good chance declarer has eight tricks outside the club suit. So many of the hands where he has the club king don't even count.

Ducking would appear to be the percentage play. But to ensure that declarer doesn't suspect anything, I must echo in clubs. I am trying to respresent ace third of clubs in partner's hand and two small in mine, and I would never fail to give count with two small. Of course, when partner echoes as well, declarer will know that one or the other of us has echoed with ace third. I'm hoping she thinks it's partner.

I play the jack of spades, and declarer plays the five. All my preperation comes to nothing when, at trick two, declarer leads the nine of diamonds. What is this all about? Whatever is going on, I don't see any gain in covering. I play the six (false count with the jack)--three--eight.

What just happened? Why did declarer take a double finesse in diamonds at trick two? If declarer is missing the club king, I don't see how this play helps. But if she is missing the heart ace, it makes a lot of sense. Any time I have the club ace, this must be superior to playing clubs at trick two. She must play diamonds eventually. Playing the suit now not only avoids the need for two dummy entries later, it also gives her an extra way to pick up the suit. Partner can't profitably continue spades. So if the nine loses to honor third or fourth in partner's hand, she has established her eighth trick. She may regret this play if our aces are switched. But even then she might survive. I might cover, the double finesse might work, or, if the finesse loses, partner might not find the necessary heart shift. Nice play, Kate. This line didn't occur to me.

Declarer leads the three of clubs from dummy. Do I still have any chance of beating this? She has two spade tricks and three diamond tricks, so I must hold declarer to two club tricks. But if I duck twice, playing her for king third, she can simply switch to hearts. I need to hope for king doubleton of clubs. I must duck the first club (to kill any squeezes against partner), win the second, then clear spades. I play the club five--king--deuce. Declarer cashes the diamond king, on which partner pitches the ten of clubs. I follow with the deuce. Declarer plays the three of clubs, and partner pitches the five of hearts. Oh, well. My only chance now is that partner began with ace-ten seventh of spades. I win and play the spade eight. No such luck. Making two.

	NORTH Stella ♠ Q ♥ K 6 4 2 ♦ 10 9 7 4 ♣ Q J 8 4
WEST Jack ♠ A 9 7 6 3 2 ♥ A 9 8 5 ♦ 8 ♣ 10 2		EAST Phillip ♠ J 8 ♥ J 7 3 ♦ Q J 6 5 2 ♣ A 6 5
	SOUTH Kate ♠ K 10 5 4 ♥ Q 10 ♦ A K 3 ♣ K 9 7 3

Our teammates collected 200 against two spades doubled. I don't know how the auction went. But if it began the same way, perhaps North made a negative double over two spades. I avoid this double with a singleton trump (so partner can pass with four), but I would double with this hand. The singleton queen and the maximum in high cards provides enough defense that I don't mind partner's passing. Besides, what's the alternative? The only other choice is to overbid and drive to game. Come to think of it, that wouldn't be so bad. Three notrump will probably make, won't it? In three, the natural play at trick two is a heart to the ten.

Table 1: -120
Table 2: +200

Result on Board 5: +2 imps
Total: +18 imps

Event 3 - Match 2 - Board 4

Board 4
Both sides vulnerable

♠ Q J 8 7 2 ♥ Q J 8 7 ♦ 2 ♣ A 8 4

LHO opens one diamond, partner overcalls two clubs, and RHO bids two hearts. When you have your own suit and support for partner in a competitive auction, there is always some question as to which suit you should show. Most of the time, raising partner is better. But here, bidding spades makes more sense, since four spades is our likeliest game. I bid two spades. LHO and partner pass, and RHO bids three notrump.

How can they be making this? Partner might strain to overcall with a good suit. But that can't be the case here. He is missing the ace of clubs and, apparently either the king or the queen-jack. So he must have high cards on the side, which means the opponents are stretching. I have hearts stacked behind declarer and partner rates to have diamonds behind dummy. (Since partner apparently overcalled light, there is an inference he has four diamonds. Three-card length in opener's suit makes a light overcall unattractive, and it's unlikely he is short in diamonds.) On top of all that, we have a source of tricks of our own. Not only do they rate to go down, they rate to go down a lot.

I criticized partner on board one for doubling a voluntarily bid game on the assumption the opponents didn't know how to add up their high-card points. But in this case I have additional information. I know their suits aren't breaking, and they don't appear to have distributional values to compensate for their lack of high cards. If LHO had bid three diamonds over two spades, I would not double. They might easily take six diamonds and three tricks on the side. But she passed, so she is presumably balanced. The opponents have clearly stepped out of line. I double, and everyone passes.

Now what to lead? If LHO had bid rebid diamonds, I might have reason to steer clear of a club lead, since the club king might be their ninth trick. But, on this auction, I have no reason to think declarer has eight cashing tricks. Leading a club might give up a trick unnecessarily. But setting up partner's club suit seems like a good way to start the defense. Accordingly, I lead the four of clubs.

	NORTH Kate ♠ 9 5 4 ♥ K 9 ♦ A K J 8 5 3 ♣ 6 3
WEST Phillip ♠ Q J 8 7 2 ♥ Q J 8 7 ♦ 2 ♣ A 8 4

West	North	East	South
Phillip	Kate	Jack	Stella
	1 ♦	2 ♣	2 ♥
2 ♠	Pass	Pass	3 NT
Double	(All pass)

Can I change my mind now? Why is declarer lucky enough to catch dummy with six diamonds? Partner plays the nine of clubs, and declarer wins with the king. I can't construct a hand for declarer that doesn't include the queen of diamonds. The worst hand I can construct for her is:

♠ K x x ♥ A x x x x ♦ Q x x ♣ K x

leaving partner with

♠ A x ♥ x x ♦ x x x ♣ Q J 10 9 x x

That's not a hand I would have overcalled with, but to each his own. If this construction is correct, they're going to make this, and we had the first seven tricks if I had led a spade.

Declarer plays the four of diamonds--deuce--king--seven. Now the king of hearts--six--five. That's encouraging. If she isn't running diamonds, maybe she's missing the queen after all. I play the seven of hearts. (Always give false count with the jack, remember. Since partner should echo with jack third, declarer can't tell how hearts are splitting.) Declarer plays the nine of hearts--three--ace--eight, then the six of diamonds. I play the spade deuce (in case partner has any bright ideas about trying to run spades instead of clubs)--ace--nine. Declarer plays a diamond to partner's queen; I discard the spade seven.

Partner shifts to the queen of clubs. We should have the rest: five clubs and two hearts. That means partner has the spade ace, else declarer would have cashed it. So, in fact, we have one more trick than we can use. I overtake the queen of clubs with my ace, cash my hearts (letting partner pitch one of his winners), and lead the club eight, so partner can overtake and claim. But he doesn't overtake. He ducks my eight of clubs, letting me take one more trick. What a nice partner, redistributing the wealth like that. We get to take four tricks each.

	NORTH Kate ♠ 9 5 4 ♥ K 9 ♦ A K J 8 5 3 ♣ 6 3
WEST Phillip ♠ Q J 8 7 2 ♥ Q J 8 7 ♦ 2 ♣ A 8 4		EAST Jack ♠ A 3 ♥ 6 3 ♦ Q 9 7 ♣ Q J 10 9 7 2
	SOUTH Stella ♠ K 10 6 ♥ A 10 5 4 2 ♦ 10 6 4 ♣ K 5

Declarer could have saved a trick by not cashing the hearts. Perhaps she was worried the black aces were reversed. Or maybe she was just hoping to get a clue as to how to play diamonds. Although I should think my double is already a pretty big clue that I don't have the diamond queen.

Did I make a bad lead? The only reason we beat this after my club lead is that South had made a gross overbid. By all rights, she should have the diamond queen, in which case I needed to lead a spade. But that seems double-dummy to me. Dummy certainly didn't have to have six diamonds.

Partner's pushy overcall while holding queen third of opener's suit was, of course, ill-advised. Although he survived the main danger: that we would go minus on offense when we were entitled to go plus on defense. The moment I doubled three notrump, I imagine he was quite happy he had bid.

How should the opponents' auction have gone after two spades? While it's rare for opener to pass with six diamonds, I agree with the pass in this case - not because she has a minimum but because she has a good hand for defense. With three spades and top cards in diamonds, North is quite happy to defend if it looks right to South.

After two spades is passed around to South, some would reopen with an "action double." But I don't think South should double with diamond support. To my mind, double is essentially a "take-out double" of partner's suit. It shows at most two diamonds and "support" for both black suits. If South does double, I think North should pass, which would not work out well on this deal. With this South hand, I would bid two notrump (natural and non-forcing), which partner would correct to three diamonds.

Our teammates were down two in five diamonds. Why is everyone bidding so much? And, come to think of it, how did they manage to go down only two?

Table 1: +1100
Table 2: -200

Result on Board 4: +14 imps
Total: +16 imps

Event 3 - Match 2 - Board 3

Board 3
Opponents vulnerable

♠ Q J 10 8 2 ♥ Q 7 ♦ K J 8 3 2 ♣ 5

If partner held this hand and opened one spade, I wouldn't object. It's only seven losers after all. But I have a feeling partner would object if I opened, so I humor him and pass. LHO opens one notrump (15-17), partner passes, and RHO bids two spades, a transfer to clubs, which I double. The primary purpose of doubling a transfer is to direct a lead, not to suggest declaring in that suit. So I would not double if my spades and diamonds were reversed. With the interior solidity of this suit, however, doubling seems right.

Cliff Bishop once told me that a double of a transfer should not be lead directing at all but should be a three-suited takeout of the suit shown. Perhaps Cliff was right, but I've never encountered anyone else who plays that way.

LHO bids two notrump, showing club support, and partner bids three spades.

One should rarely "raise" a lead-directing double. So partner should have at least four-card support and a good hand. Since we play Astro, partner would have had no trouble finding a call over one notrump with four or more spades and an unbalanced hand, even with a "4441." I suspect, therefore, that he is balanced, presumably with about 11 or 12 high-card points. (With more, he could have cue-bid three clubs; with less, it would be both unsafe and pointless to bid.) My hand would play poorly opposite a singleton diamond, so the fact that partner is probably balanced is a definite plus. Opposite a balanced "raise," I'm willing to bid game.

RHO bids four clubs. I might as well show my second suit to help partner decide what to do over five clubs. I bid four diamonds. For once, passing a marginal hand in first seat turned out OK. I got to show both my suits while limiting my hand. Although I was lucky that the opponents play two spades (rather than, say, two notrump) as their transfer to clubs. LHO bids five clubs, and partner doubles, ending the auction.

The opponents probably would have found an eight-card heart fit if they had one, so partner rates to have four hearts. Most likely, he is 4-4-3-2. To have doubled this, his red-suit strength must be in hearts rather than in diamonds.

Should I lead a heart on that basis? It could certainly be right if partner has the ace-jack of hearts and I can get a ruff. But that's about the only scenario I can think of where a heart lead is right. If partner's hearts are better than that, I don't need the ruff. And if they are worse, it's probably wrong for us to be breaking the suit. As pedestrian as it is, a spade lead looks better. If partner has the ace over dummy's king and I don't lead a spade, partner may find himself in some Morton's forkish situation where he must either cash the ace, setting up dummy's king, or not cash it and lose it altogether. Accordingly, I lead the queen of spades.

	NORTH Kate ♠ A K 9 ♥ K 10 4 3 ♦ 9 7 ♣ A Q 9 3
WEST Phillip ♠ Q J 10 8 2 ♥ Q 7 ♦ K J 8 3 2 ♣ 5

West	North	East	South
Phillip	Kate	Jack	Stella
Pass	1 NT	Pass	2 ♠1
Double	2 NT2	3 ♠	4 ♣
4 ♦	5 ♣	Double	(All pass)
1Transfer to clubs
2Shows support

Oops. Maybe a heart lead was the right idea after all. If I'm right about partner's shape, declarer is 1-3-3-6 and can now pitch a heart away. What can partner's hand be?

♠ x x x x ♥ A J x x ♦ A Q x ♣ x x

That doesn't leave declarer much for her four club bid, though:

♠ x ♥ x x x ♦ x x x ♣ K J x x x x

Declarer has to have more than that, but partner can hardly have less. This hand isn't adding up.

Dummy wins with the spade king--three--six. Declarer leads the three of clubs from dummy--eight--jack--five. Declarer then plays the deuce of hearts. This makes no sense. How can declarer afford to play hearts before taking a pitch on the spade ace? Apparently, she doesn't have a pitch. Partner "raised" spades with three small.

And why didn't she draw another round of trumps? Is it possible she has seven of them? That gives her a 2-3-1-7 pattern and leaves partner with 3-4-5-1. Not only does that give partner an easy Astro two-club bid, it gives him a strange double of five clubs: five-card support for my second suit and a singleton club. On the other hand, 2-3-1-7 is more consistent with declarer's four club bid than is 2-3-2-6.

If declarer is indeed 2-3-1-7, there is endplay lurking. Suppose partner has ace-jack-nine fourth of hearts. If I play low and dummy's ten loses to partner's jack, partner must underlead his diamond ace to my king and allow me to lead the heart queen. If he carelessly plays ace and another diamond, declarer can ruff out the spades, play a heart, and duck my queen. I must now give her a ruff-sluff, letting her escape for down one. Perhaps it's better for me to unblock the heart queen rather than count on partner to find the underlead. It's hard to see how it can hurt to play the queen of hearts. Declarer can hardly have the ace.

I play the heart queen--king--ace. Partner plays the diamond ace, and declarer ruffs with the deuce of clubs. Six diamonds? Six-card support for my second suit and partner chose to defend?

So declarer is 2-4-0-7. Well, that explains why partner didn't bid Astro. He didn't have a four-card major. Now partner needs the nine of hearts to beat this. If he doesn't have it, we're going minus 750 when we had a one-trick save available.

I play the deuce of diamonds. Declarer leads the five of spades--ten--ace--four. She then plays the three of hearts from dummy. Partner plays---the five. Minus 750.

	NORTH Kate ♠ A K 9 ♥ K 10 4 3 ♦ 9 7 ♣ A Q 9 3
WEST Phillip ♠ Q J 10 8 2 ♥ Q 7 ♦ K J 8 3 2 ♣ 5		EAST Jack ♠ 7 4 3 ♥ A J 5 ♦ A Q 10 6 5 4 ♣ 8
	SOUTH Stella ♠ 6 5 ♥ 9 8 6 2 ♦ -- ♣ K J 10 7 6 4 2

I have sympathy with partner's first-round pass but not with his three-spade bid. Three diamonds on the second round must show spade tolerance and is far more descriptive than three spades. The final decision was just plain weird. It turns out, Jack thought my four diamonds was a cue-bid, which makes no sense.

As weird as partner's decision was, he was the only one who was right on a double-dummy basis. I could have beat this with a heart lead. And the opponents were cold for five hearts. I hope partner gets some satisfaction from that fact.

I was expecting to lose 12 imps. But, miraculously, this board is a push. Or maybe it's not so miraculous. The same player is sitting East at both tables, after all.

Table 1: -750
Table 2: +750

Result on Board 3: 0 imps
Total: +2 imps

Event 3 - Match 2 - Board 2

Board 2
Our side vulnerable

♠ 10 6 ♥ 4 2 ♦ A 7 5 2 ♣ A K 6 3 2

RHO opens four hearts, which ends the auction. Our convention cards says "ace from ace-king." But, since one is quite likely to lead an unsupported ace after four of a major--all pass, I lead the club king. This will make it easier for partner to place my high cards if I decide to shift at trick two. The downside is that it may make partner's trick one signal harder for me to read. But making things slightly harder for me and much easier for partner seems like a good trade-off.

	NORTH Kate ♠ K 9 7 5 ♥ J ♦ Q J 9 4 ♣ J 10 9 8
WEST Phillip ♠ 10 6 ♥ 4 2 ♦ A 7 5 2 ♣ A K 6 3 2

West	North	East	South
Phillip	Kate	Jack	Stella
			4 ♥
(All pass)

Partner plays the club seven; declarer, the four. The only time partner's club seven isn't forced is when he has queen-seven-five or seven-five. Playing with a human partner, I would rule out the former holding. I don't think partner would encourage with queen third looking at jack-ten fourth in the dummy. Playing with Jack, however, it is the latter holding I rule out. Jack tends to encourage with an honor and discourage without one whether that makes any sense in context or not. So I will assume that partner has either the club queen or a singleton.

There are three possible active strategies I might adopt at this point: (1) Cash out. (2) Go after slow tricks. (3) Go after ruffs. In addition, there is (4) Defend passively. Let's look at each strategy in turn and consider what conditions would make each strategy necessary.

(1) For a cash out to be necessary, declarer must have fast tricks on which she can pitch her losers given the chance. The only possible fast trick in dummy is the spade king. And the only way declarer can pitch something on it without giving up the lead is to have a singleton spade ace and a dummy entry. This gives declarer,

(A) ♠ A ♥ A K Q x x x x x ♦ x x ♣ x x.

While I would never open four hearts myself with this hand, I'm not so sure about Jack. The description Jack offers is "six to thirteen high-card points, six to nine playing tricks, and seven or more hearts." This hand fits that description, so I do believe it's a possible hand. Even on this layout, however, a cashout is not necessary. Playing a trump before declarer has a chance to unblock spades will work as well.

(2) For it to be necessary to go after slow tricks, declarer must have slow tricks herself and we must have the tempi to take our slow tricks before declarer can take hers. The only suit we can have slow tricks in is spades. So for (2) to be the right strategy, declarer must have something like,

(B) ♠ A x x ♥ A K Q x x x x ♦ x x ♣ x.

We have a slow spade trick, and declarer has slow diamond tricks. If we defend passively, declarer can drive the ace and king of diamonds and take a pitch. To prevent that, we must lead a spade now and lead a second spade on winning our first diamond trick. Again, this hand does not look like a four heart bid to me, but I suspect it's possible for Jack.

(3) For it to be necessary to go after a ruff, we must have exactly three winners aside from the ruff. Playing partner for the ace-queen of spades and going after a spade ruff, for example, implicitly assumes that neither of my minor-suit aces is cashing:

(C) ♠ J x x x ♥ A K x x x x x x ♦ -- ♣ x.

This the first hand I've constructed that actually looks like a four heart opening.

The ruff does not have to be immediate. Take this hand, for example:

(D) ♠ Q J x x ♥ K Q x x x x x x ♦ -- ♣ x.

Again, a spade shift is necessary to beat four hearts. (Although if we take away declarer's spade jack, it isn't.)

Can it be right to go after a diamond ruff? Declarer would need,

(E) ♠ x ♥ A K Q x x x x ♦ K x x x ♣ x.

While we must get a diamond ruff to beat four hearts, it is not necessary to switch to diamonds to get our ruff. A spade shift should work as well, since it can hardly be wrong for partner to switch to his singleton diamond at trick three. A spade shift would fail if declarer's small spade were a club. But, given partner's failure to balance with four spades, I'm not worried about finding declarer with a spade void.

If it's actually necessary to switch to diamond, I probably need to switch to a small one:

(F) ♠ A x ♥ A K Q x x x x ♦ x x x ♣ x.

Could it be right to go after a club ruff? For that to be necessary, we must have only one trick in the pointed suits:

(G) ♠ Q x ♥ A K x x x x x x ♦ -- ♣ Q x x.

Now I must continue clubs (either the ace or a low one will do). But if we simply take the spade queen away or make declarer one-one in the pointed suits, the club ruff is unnecessary. I don't mind losing the club ruff if it's not the setting trick.

All in all, a spade shift seems best if an active defense is called for. How about strategy (4)? Could a spade shift cost when a passive defense would succeed? The danger in playing spades is finding declarer with queen-eight third and a dummy entry:

(H) ♠ Q 8 x ♥ A K Q x x x x x ♦ x ♣ x.

Actually, while a passive defense makes things easier for partner, it isn't strictly necessary on this layout. If I shift to the spade ten and declarer plays the king from dummy, we still beat it if partner ducks.

A spade seems like the best choice. But there is no clear, demonstrable answer to this problem. When you have so few constraints to work with, it's impossible to consider all the possibilities. So you can never be sure you've found the best solution. But you can be sure you've found a reasonable solution. As long as you can construct at least one specific, plausible layout where the defense you have chosen is necessary, you know you have at least some chance of doing the right thing. Failure to do this is one of the prime causes of defensive errors. Often a defender faced with a difficult problem like this will base his decision only on general principles (I'm going to cut down ruffs; I'm going to try to set up diamond tricks; etc.). If you do that, you may discover later, to your embarrassment, that there is no plausible layout where your defense is necessary. In this particular case, I have found three plausible layouts--(B), (C), and (D)--where a spade shift is the only play that succeeds. So I can rest assured that I have done my due diligence.

I shift to the spade ten--five--eight--ace. Partner should not encourage with queen-jack sixth of spades. With six spades, he knows good and well he doesn't want me continuing spades if I get in. So declarer's spade ace should not be a singleton. Unfortunately, I can't count on Jack for such subtleties, so I must ignore that inference.

Declarer leads the diamond ten. Why isn't she drawing trumps? The two reasons I can think of are (1) declarer has solid trumps and wants to use the heart jack as a later entry, or (2) she wants to finesse partner out of a trump honor.

One usually ducks the ace in this position to avoid setting up a ruffing finesse against partner if the ten is a singleton. For example, if declarer has

(I) ♠ A x x ♥ A K Q x x x x ♦ 10 ♣ x x

hopping with the ace will give declarer the contract. If I duck, we beat it, provided partner takes care to cash the club queen before exiting. (If he doesn't, declarer can lead the diamond queen and pitch her club.)

Is there any reason ducking might be a bad idea? The diamond king is partner's only entry. What if declarer has:

(J) ♠ A x x ♥ A K Q x x x x ♦ 10 x ♣ x

Now I must hop and continue spades. If partner wins the first diamond, he's out of entries and there is no way to collect our spade trick.

How can I choose between these two layouts? Playing with Jack, I have nothing to go on. Playing with a partner I could trust, I would rule out (J) based on partner's trick one signal.

It might also be wrong to duck if ducking gives declarer a dummy entry:

(K) ♠ A ♥ K 10 x x x x x x ♦ K 10 ♣ x x

If I duck, declarer overtakes, pitches a loser on the spade king, then plays a heart through partner's ace-queen. If I hop and play a minor, declarer is down two. That brings up another problem with hopping. I don't know what to play if I do hop. If declarer has (I), I must play a spade. But if declarer has (K) or even

(L) ♠ A ♥ A Q x x x x x ♦ 10 x ♣ x x

hopping and playing a spade lets her make it. If I do hop, I must play something else.

If I could count on partner to signal intelligently, I could rule out (J) by partner's club signal, and I could rule out (K) and (L) by partner's spade signal. I could then duck with some confidence. Playing with Jack, I just have to make a percentage guess. Since hopping and playing a spade works on only one of the four layouts I've constructed and ducking works on two, I duck, playing the seven.

Declarer overtakes with the jack, giving me a moment of panic. But partner takes the king and shifts to the queen of hearts. Declarer takes eight heart tricks and the spade king. We have no discarding problems. I save two aces, partner saves two spades, and we get a trick at the end. Making four.

	NORTH Kate ♠ K 9 7 5 ♥ J ♦ Q J 9 4 ♣ J 10 9 8
WEST Phillip ♠ 10 6 ♥ 4 2 ♦ A 7 5 2 ♣ A K 6 3 2		EAST Jack ♠ Q J 8 2 ♥ Q 7 ♦ K 8 6 3 ♣ Q 7 5
	SOUTH Stella ♠ A 4 3 ♥ A K 10 9 8 6 5 3 ♦ 10 ♣ 4

To test my trick two decision, I had Jack analyze the position. He agrees with me. After examining 1000 hands, he concluded that the spade ten was the best play, with an expectation of +21.4 points. Second best was a low club, with an expectation of +10.0 points. Since the prime factor in determining my best play is Jack's idea of what a four heart bid looks like, and since he knows that better than I do, I have to trust his judgment.

The other table plays the same contract with the same result. Why is it that the deals that require the most extensive analysis always seem to be pushes?

Table 1: -420
Table 2: +420

Result on Board 2: 0 imps
Total: +2 imps

Event 3 - Match 2 - Board 1

Board 1
Neither vulnerable

♠ 5 4 2 ♥ 2 ♦ A 8 6 2 ♣ 10 9 7 5 2

Two passes to me. I open one diamond. LHO doubles, partner bids one spade, and RHO bids two hearts. In theory, pass by me denies three spades. But I exercise my judgment and pass anyway. LHO bids two spades. Jack calls this a "cue-bid," but I wouldn't play it that way. The one suit LHO can't have after doubling one diamond is diamonds, so three diamonds is clearly a cue-bid. Since I see no reason to play two cue-bids, I play two spades (or any number of spades for that matter) as natural.

Partner passes. If partner were sure he wanted a spade lead against three notrump, he would double. But he can't afford to double too aggressively. Doubling sometimes works to the opponents' advantage by allowing them to exchange information via pass and redouble.

RHO bids three hearts. I pass, and LHO bids four hearts, which partner doubles. Everyone passes.

Partner presumably has four hearts, which means he has five spades, else he would have bid one heart over the take-out double. Since he has at most four cards in the minors, perhaps I should try to give him a minor-suit ruff. While a low diamond lead might be the only way to do that, the percentage lead is a club, enabling me to give partner a ruff if he has a quick entry and a singleton in either minor.

On the other hand, going after a ruff may be the wrong approach altogether. If partner has natural trump tricks, as his double suggests, he doesn't a need a ruff. Pursuing one may be wasting a tempo. Trick one may be my last chance to get spades going before declarer can pitch his spades on minor-suit tricks in dummy. So I lead the deuce of spades.

	NORTH Kate ♠ A 7 ♥ K Q 4 ♦ K Q J 3 ♣ A Q J 8
WEST Phillip ♠ 5 4 2 ♥ 2 ♦ A 8 6 2 ♣ 10 9 7 5 2

West	North	East	South
Phillip	Kate	Jack	Stella
		Pass	Pass
1 ♦	Double	1 ♠	2 ♥
Pass	2 ♠	Pass	3 ♥
Pass	4 ♥	Double	(All pass)

I don't agree with the four-heart bid, since I don't think South's three-heart bid promised five hearts. Sometimes she is stuck and has no choice but to rebid her four-card suit. Three notrump at this point invites partner to correct, since North would have bid three notrump a round earlier with no interest in playing hearts.

Dummy plays the spade seven. Partner plays the ten; declarer plays the three. Hmm. Partner apparently doubles two spades even less aggressively than I do.

Partner surely has the heart ace, which gives us three tricks. We need one slow trump trick or a ruff to beat this.

Partner returns the six of spades, and declarer plays the eight. (Play the nine, Stella! The card you're known to hold.) I play the five, and dummy wins with the ace. Declarer plays the heart queen--five--three--deuce. Now the heart king. Partner takes the ace, and declarer follows with the seven.

If partner has another trump trick we'll beat this. The only holding he can have where a trump trick is in doubt is ten doubleton. In that case, he will return a spade to tap dummy, preventing declarer from finessing him out of his ten. Is there any danger of his being couped? I need to work out the details now so I know what my objective is. If partner can't be couped on best defense, I need to help partner out with the count so he doesn't make a mistake. On the other hand, if declarer can coup partner if she guesses his shape, I need to do what I can to obscure the count.

I can't work through the play trick by trick, since I'm not sure of declarer's minor-suit shape. But perhaps I don't need to. Whatever her shape, her general plan will be to cash winners, then ruff something to her hand to reduce her trump holding. At trick 11, she will be down to two trumps and some minor-suit card. She will need to lead that card to dummy to coup partner. But partner will be down to two trumps and a spade. Whichever suit declarer tries to use to reach dummy partner will be able to ruff. As long as partner doesn't ruff prematurely, declarer can't make this.

This wouldn't be true if partner had taken his trump ace on the previous trick. Declarer would be able to use the trump king for her entry to dummy at trick 11. Nice duck, partner. Since no deception is necessary, I play the club deuce.

As expected, partner plays the spade king--nine--four--heart four. Declarer plays the eight of clubs--six--king--ten. Then the club three--five--jack--four. The fact that declarer isn't drawing trumps suggests partner indeed has ten doubleton left. Declarer now plays the diamond jack--nine--seven. I take my ace. We have reached this position:

	NORTH Kate ♠ -- ♥ -- ♦ K Q 3 ♣ A Q
WEST Phillip ♠ -- ♥ -- ♦ 8 6 2 ♣ 9 7		EAST Jack ♠ Q J ♥ 10 x ♦ x ♣ --
	SOUTH Stella ♠ -- ♥ J 9 x ♦ 10 x ♣ --

In theory, it doesn't matter what I return. But a diamond requires less alertness from partner. If I play a club, partner must discard a diamond. If I play a diamond, all he has to do is follow suit. I play the diamond deuce--queen--four--five. Declarer leads the club queen. Partner pitches the spade jack. Declarer ruffs and plays a diamond to dummy, which partner ruffs. Down one.

	NORTH Kate ♠ A 7 ♥ K Q 4 ♦ K Q J 3 ♣ A Q J 8
WEST Phillip ♠ 5 4 2 ♥ 2 ♦ A 8 6 2 ♣ 10 9 7 5 2		EAST Jack ♠ K Q J 10 6 ♥ A 10 6 5 ♦ 9 4 ♣ 6 4
	SOUTH Stella ♠ 9 8 3 ♥ J 9 8 7 3 ♦ 10 7 5 ♣ K 3

Partner made a nice play ducking the heart ace. But, given the fact declarer had a road map, she still should have made it. When the heart queen holds, she should lead the diamond king. We can no longer stop the trump coup, because declarer no longer needs to reach dummy at trick eleven. She and partner will each be down to three trumps in the end position, so she can simply lead a trump to dummy's king and endplay partner.

To have a chance to beat this, we must go after a diamond ruff, which means I must duck the diamond to preserve communication. Declarer then plays three rounds of clubs. Partner can't afford to let declarer pitch a diamond or he will lose his ruff. Therefore, he must ruff the club. Declarer overruffs, ruffs a spade to dummy, and plays the fourth round of clubs. If partner ruffs this, he has no low trumps left to ruff a diamond with. If he doesn't, declarer pitches a diamond and loses only the two red aces.

Partner could have beat this by force by shifting to a diamond at trick two, provided I duck. The difference is that partner now has three low hearts instead of just two. So he can ruff both clubs to stop the diamond pitch and still have a low trump left to ruff a diamond with when he gets in with the heart ace.

Should I find the duck if partner shifts to a diamond, or should I win the trick, playing him for a singleton? With a singleton, partner can force me to do the right thing by cashing the heart ace before shifting. If he doesn't cash the ace, I can duck with confidence playing opposite a reliable partner. Of course, this inference isn't valid playing with Jack. But ducking is still the percentage play. Declarer must have the club king. Her minor-suit spot-card distribution is much more likely to be three-one than to be four-zero.

Should partner have found the diamond shift? I don't know. It's hard to work out at trick two that there's no way to stop the trump coup. Better simply not to double. We needn't defend so perfectly if declarer doesn't know trumps aren't breaking.

I know some of you are thinking that I have no right to complain about the double after I opened one diamond. But I don't agree. It would be a different matter if the opponents had competed to four hearts over three spades. But they didn't. They bid this game on their own steam. What difference would it make if I had a full opening bid? The more high cards I have, the more shape they must have. You don't double a voluntarily bid game because you think the opponents have miscounted their high-card points. You double because you know something the they don't know and that you don't mind telling them. Ace-ten fourth of trumps may meet the first criterion, but it doesn't meet the second.

If you want to lay responsibility for partner's double on me, you will have a better chance convincing me if you place the blame on my second "psyche": the failure to make a support double. Since I would probably act over two hearts with ten cards in the minors, my failure to double strongly suggests that I have two hearts, which means the opponents are in a four-three fit. In that case, with ace-ten fourth of hearts and a ready-make tap suit, partner has reason to believe we are beating four hearts several tricks. (Just to be clear, I'm not saying I should make a support double, just that the failure to do so had unexpected consequences.)

It didn't occur to me until now. But I wonder if that's why partner returned a spade at trick two. If I couldn't have three spades, the deuce had to be a singleton. Not only did my failure to double two hearts trick partner into doubling the final contract, it tricked him into misdefending. Oh, what a tangled web we weave...

Our opponents did not double four hearts at the other table, so we pick up 2 imps.

Table 1: +100
Table 2: -50

Result on Board 1: +2 imps
Total: +2 imps